No Time To Die: Production Diary

18888898918938942507

Comments

  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.

    Bond and seriousness should never have a closer relationship than they had in the 90's, that is, a distant one.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I hope the rumours that the working title is Shatterhand and they stick with it. Press guessing is hilarious on this so far.

    From NME quoting the Mirror

    Daniel Craig has been confirmed to appear in the next instalment of the espionage franchise, despite previous reports he could quit


    Details about the next James Bond movie have reportedly been revealed.

    The next film will be the 25th in the British espionage franchise. Daniel Craig, the latest actor to play the titular character, has already been confirmed to return to the role in the movie.



    According to The Mirror, some key details about the film – including locations, storyline and working title – have been revealed.

    A source reportedly told the paper that Bond will travel to Croatia for the the film, which will be basaed on the 2001 novel Never Dream Of Dying. That book was written by Raymond Benson, who also wrote the movie tie-ins Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.

    The plotline of Never Dream Of Dying sees Bond embark on a relationship with film star Tylyn Mignonne, whose husband has ties to the crime organisation The Union.


    Other locations allegedly set to be included in the movie include Japan and the south of France. The source said: “Bond scriptwriters feel it could be the perfect follow-up to Spectre. They are hoping to film in Croatia next year.”



    The working title for James Bond 25 is, apparently, Shatterhand.

    So far, Craig, Naomie Harris (Miss Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q) and Rory Kinnear have all been confirmed to appear in the forthcoming movie. Christoph Waltz and Dave Bautista are rumoured to return as villains.


    Skyfall and Spectre director Sam Mendes will not work on James Bond 25. His replacement is yet to be announced, but, as The Independent reports, Yann Demange (’71), David Mackenzie (Hell Or High Water) and Denis Villenueve (Blade Runner 2049) are all in the running to take his place.


    Most of which has already been debunked.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    David Bautista has expressed that he would love to come back as Hinx even after his character was ripped out of a moving train on Spectre.

    http://movieweb.com/james-bond-25-shatterhand-blind-villain-locations/
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!
  • Posts: 11,119
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.

    Exactly. That's why I take great pride in my limited edition steelbook trilogy of The Dark Knight. It's a highpoint in the action/superhero/spy franchise. Nolan got inspired by Peter Hunt's OHMSS. Mendes got inspired by Nolan. And the result is a cross-pollination of wonderful, slightly more serious films, in which each and every character were much more than its own historical pastiche.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
    Luckily, we don't need to worry about these. Mendes himself very well stated that the producers are already taking a different direction with the next one so however the fans of the emotional dilemmas with "deep meanings" support it, we know the next one won't ever employ that tone and resort to a lighter area with coherent plot than character-driven installment.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.

    It's not "emotional drama" to give a damn about whether your protagonist lives or dies.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited August 2017 Posts: 3,157
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I would rather we never had any emotional arc of films over a decade EVER EVER again.

    Better make that two. I would rather see Bond have high class action, than low class drama.
    Make it three. Time to turn the page on the last decade and chart a new course. Come on EON. Cut the cord and let's move on.

    Sorry, but if you think the reboot-button is the only way to....move the Bond franchise forward, then I think this option has way too little nuance. I mean, come on, charting a new course first of all starts with a good script. Let's focus on that first, regardless of extreme and radical measures like the Hollywood reboot-button or prequel-button.

    I understand the criticism towards EON. Gosh, add me to that group of critical forummembers too. I don't know if you read my article, so you ought to know all difficulties involved in producing Bond #25. But that goes for both a continuation of the Craig-timeline as well as a full reboot.

    Having said that, for the long-term future of the Bond franchise, I do prefer Daniel Craig's return. I mean, what's next? Rebooting with every new Bond actor? Sorry.......I am longing for a more continuous run of Bond films, which makes it eventually also easier to produce Bond films with a more stand-alone nature.
    I don't need a reboot. I'd strongly prefer a recast though so we can cleanse ourselves of the interconnected past, which has weighed some of us down. It's much easier to ignore (even with the same supporting cast) if we have a new man in the lead. Unfortunately, the drama and angst is Craig's. It's inseparable from him now. That's what happens when you create a continuity project, which they perhaps shouldn't have done.

    In retrospect, QoS was the first mistake, as the first 'sequel'. They should have just moved on to standalones right after CR. Bond was Bond at the end after all, or so we thought after the 'Bond, James Bond' moment.

    That was all the way back in 2006. We're still not sure if he's fully Bond now in 2017. Every film we get a tease of him shedding his baggage but it never fully gets wiped from him.

    I really wouldn't have minded so much if they'd just gotten on with it and finished the whole Quantum thing off in 2012 with SF. Rather, they detoured to M's family issues and then came back to it again in 2015, 9 years after it began. Now some are clamouring for more continuity in 2019? I'm sorry but you know what I'd rather do than watch that (clue: hide all sharp objects).

    Now that I think about it, didn't Mendes say that SPECTRE is set "a few months after Skyfall"? Which would explain why Bond is just receiving his "personal effects recovered from Skyfall".

    This means that either Bond 25 is set in the past (very unlikely) or it's going to be set 7 years after SPECTRE.

    Granted, EON probably don't care (and they may not even be aware), but it's still pretty amusing to think about it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The title of SPECTRE, along with the cast, were presented in December 2014, ten months prior to the film s release. That is pretty normal procedure for Bond.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    The title of SPECTRE, along with the cast, were presented in December 2014, ten months prior to the film s release. That is pretty normal procedure for Bond.

    Exciting. So we should get a title, cast, announcement party in under 18 months? Brilliant. :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.
    I can appreciate your fears, especially given the trauma you must have experienced after Dalton moved on in favour of Brosnan.

    There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.

    There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).
  • Posts: 1,162
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I would rather we never had any emotional arc of films over a decade EVER EVER again.

    Better make that two. I would rather see Bond have high class action, than low class drama.

    Yeah, let's copy-paste "The Fast And The Furious"....

    Just because copy and paste is the "proven" Mendes approach doesn't mean everyone else has to adhere to that Modus operandi.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.

    It's not "emotional drama" to give a damn about whether your protagonist lives or dies.

    The idea you presented of Bond being outmatched with the odds against him is antithetical to most of film Bond. The films are at their best and most entertaining when Bond is a force to be reckoned with who's kicking ass while being smug and unflinching in the face of danger. Suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable, but if you're suggesting that Bond should be put in a situation where he's in as seemingly hopeless a situation as the events of Dunkirk, then that would make for one heck of a dreary Bond movie. It a Nolan for me. To each their own though.
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
    Luckily, we don't need to worry about these. Mendes himself very well stated that the producers are already taking a different direction with the next one so however the fans of the emotional dilemmas with "deep meanings" support it, we know the next one won't ever employ that tone and resort to a lighter area with coherent plot than character-driven installment.

    Music to my ears.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.
    Having seen Hans Zimmer live in concert earlier this week I was inspired to rewatch Inception (he closed out the concert with a medley from this film). A masterpiece imho. I kept wondering how Nolan filmed some of those famous scenes (including the mid air suspension and fights). There wasn't a hint of green screen anywhere and everything felt intense and real, while still retaining that necessary level of high class fantasy. The OHMSS/FYEO tribute was a definite highlight. Hardy was brilliant.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.

    It's not "emotional drama" to give a damn about whether your protagonist lives or dies.

    The idea you presented of Bond being outmatched with the odds against him is antithetical to most of film Bond. The films are at their best and most entertaining when Bond is a force to be reckoned with who's kicking ass while being smug and unflinching in the face of danger. Suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable, but if you're suggesting that Bond should be put in a situation where he's in as seemingly hopeless a situation as the events of Dunkirk, then that would make for one heck of a dreary Bond movie. It a Nolan for me. To each their own though.
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
    Luckily, we don't need to worry about these. Mendes himself very well stated that the producers are already taking a different direction with the next one so however the fans of the emotional dilemmas with "deep meanings" support it, we know the next one won't ever employ that tone and resort to a lighter area with coherent plot than character-driven installment.

    Music to my ears.

    But surely there has to be dramatic tension somewhere along the road. Where's the fun in sitting for 2 hrs and watching someone just cruising? Even in the early Connery films, he would get ruffled and look stressed at how to cope with the situation. In Dr No, for instance he gets plonked down in Jamaica and largely has to work for himself. He has no idea who can be trusted, and he has to exercise caution at every turn, being very careful about who he puts his trust in. Of course Bond always comes out on top, but if he never even breaks a sweat, then the story becomes truly dull for me.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.

    Sorry, but no it can't! And it never has been in five decades. Safe - of course - SF.
  • Posts: 1,162
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.

    I really really wonder where so many of you have gotten the idea that Bond movies should be about drama? After all, that's not the way he became a legend.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.

    I really really wonder where so many of you have gotten the idea that Bond movies should be about drama? After all, that's not the way he became a legend.
    Boggles my mind also!
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 2,115
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm trying to remember when the title was announced last time. Was it about ten months prior?

    Announced Dec. 4, 2014. I think filming began Dec. 8.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm trying to remember when the title was announced last time. Was it about ten months prior?

    Announced Dec. 4, 2014.
    One of the biggest *yawn* moments in the franchise's illustrious history imho. Hoping for something a little more inspired next time out.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.
    I can appreciate your fears, especially given the trauma you must have experienced after Dalton moved on in favour of Brosnan.

    There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.

    There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).

    Fair enough if you feel that way, but I think you're hatred of SP is blinding you to the fact it's still a perfectly serviceable Bond performance from Craig.

    Bit unfair comparing Dalton's second outing with SP. Surely LTK should be compared with QoS? Plus we never got late Dalton Bond. Who knows where it would have ended up. Probably he would have gone out on a less hard hitting entry.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,187
    Filming will begin late 2018

    OMG. Where? Link??

    Jesus calm down mate youre like Pavlov's dog hearing the dinner bell.

    The film is realeased in 2019 so you don't have to be Woodward and Bernstein to surmise it will be filmed late 2018 into early 2019.

    A few more scoops:

    Post production will be done in mid to late 2019.
    The teaser trailer will be released in early to mid 2019.
    The poster will be released in mid to late 2019.

    Fuck sake, can I be......excited and happy??? Man, want me to throw myself off a building?? If you say "Calm Down!" then the same goes for you. No reason to get irritated by someone's sincere excitement!

    Well if if this statement of the obvious excites you I worry for your health when they actually cast anyone or the trailer is released.

    You need to watch your blood pressure because I hear an announcement on who's doing the on set catering is due soon.
    With the result that was SP (which I was very excited about prior to the release), I think I'm going to approach B25 with much less excitement. Rather be positively surprised at the cinema. Still, following the production over the next two years is going to be interesting.

    Absolutely. The lowness of expectation after SP and with the knowledge P&W are back means going in one can only be pleasantly surprised.
    Can you refrain from being a twerp on this thread, starting about now? It seems that is the only type of posts you can make. Surely the mods have thought about banning you?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.
    I can appreciate your fears, especially given the trauma you must have experienced after Dalton moved on in favour of Brosnan.

    There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.

    There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).

    Fair enough if you feel that way, but I think you're hatred of SP is blinding you to the fact it's still a perfectly serviceable Bond performance from Craig.

    Bit unfair comparing Dalton's second outing with SP. Surely LTK should be compared with QoS? Plus we never got late Dalton Bond. Who knows where it would have ended up. Probably he would have gone out on a less hard hitting entry.
    There's no 'hatred' here. That's not an emotion I'm partial to. Severe disappointment is more like it.

    Serviceable you say? That's a bit generous don't you think? Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be getting a bit more than that, weren't we? That was the whole promise of the Craig era. If I'm supposed to settle for 'serviceable' then let's get a younger actor in the role who can fully live up to cinematic Bond's glamour, style and uniqueness.

    Of course LTK can be compared to QoS. That's not the point I was making. The point is I am not wed to this actor, his interpretation or his direct continuity story and troubles. While a valid argument could be made that Dalton's run was 'cut short' after two years, that he went out on a high (performance wise) and that he didn't have an opportunity to give us everything he could, the same can't be said for Craig. He has been given a chance to play all sides of Bond, just like Brosnan was given a chance.

    Craig is not Tom Cruise. Bond is not his cinematic invention. He started as a rookie with the reboot and has taken the franchise back to the 'old school' style with SP. Now, in the interests of giving the franchise a fresh start after 12 years (since he was originally cast), I personally feel it's time to move on, especially since the whole era has been 'connected' in a tiresome way.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.

    It's not "emotional drama" to give a damn about whether your protagonist lives or dies.

    The idea you presented of Bond being outmatched with the odds against him is antithetical to most of film Bond. The films are at their best and most entertaining when Bond is a force to be reckoned with who's kicking ass while being smug and unflinching in the face of danger. Suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable, but if you're suggesting that Bond should be put in a situation where he's in as seemingly hopeless a situation as the events of Dunkirk, then that would make for one heck of a dreary Bond movie. It a Nolan for me. To each their own though.
    When Nolan talks about
    not hearing the back stories of the soldiers and empathizing simply down to the struggle of the situation at hand, I think that summerizes what has to happen with Bond. Throw him into a situation and make the audience care simply due to the odds being staked against him. That's about as sympathetic as Bond needs to be, and no dialogue is needed to illustrate this. Instead focus on the atmosphere and suspense of the moment. Nolan just lays out how to reinvent Bond after Craig, and he's not speaking on the sane topic. Wow!

    "Empathizing. "Care." "Sympathetic." Yeah...because Bond films need more emotional drama shoved into them after the Craig era.
    Luckily, we don't need to worry about these. Mendes himself very well stated that the producers are already taking a different direction with the next one so however the fans of the emotional dilemmas with "deep meanings" support it, we know the next one won't ever employ that tone and resort to a lighter area with coherent plot than character-driven installment.

    Music to my ears.

    But surely there has to be dramatic tension somewhere along the road. Where's the fun in sitting for 2 hrs and watching someone just cruising? Even in the early Connery films, he would get ruffled and look stressed at how to cope with the situation. In Dr No, for instance he gets plonked down in Jamaica and largely has to work for himself. He has no idea who can be trusted, and he has to exercise caution at every turn, being very careful about who he puts his trust in. Of course Bond always comes out on top, but if he never even breaks a sweat, then the story becomes truly dull for me.

    As I said, suspense is good, necessary, and enjoyable. The examples of drama and suspense in the Connery films that you cite are good, and well balanced in the films overall; they are not all that their respective films have to offer. If Nolan were to do a Bond movie, I fear that it would be a dull, overly serious, overly dramatic slog to sit through, that would put its entire focus on drama. Take Dunkirk for example. If you were to take the tone of that movie and translate it to a Bond movie, you would have exactly the overly dramatic Bond film I don't want. Nolan seems to think of himself as an artist, and cinema as a pure art, to the point where I believe a Nolan Bond movie would likely end up being a very stuffy affair.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.
    I can appreciate your fears, especially given the trauma you must have experienced after Dalton moved on in favour of Brosnan.

    There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.

    There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).

    Fair enough if you feel that way, but I think you're hatred of SP is blinding you to the fact it's still a perfectly serviceable Bond performance from Craig.

    Bit unfair comparing Dalton's second outing with SP. Surely LTK should be compared with QoS? Plus we never got late Dalton Bond. Who knows where it would have ended up. Probably he would have gone out on a less hard hitting entry.
    There's no 'hatred' here. That's not an emotion I'm partial to. Severe disappointment is more like it.

    Serviceable you say? That's a bit generous don't you think? Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be getting a bit more than that, weren't we? That was the whole promise of the Craig era. If I'm supposed to settle for 'serviceable' then let's get a younger actor in the role who can fully live up to cinematic Bond's glamour, style and uniqueness.

    Of course LTK can be compared to QoS. That's not the point I was making. The point is I am not wed to this actor, his interpretation or his direct continuity story and troubles. While a valid argument could be made that Dalton's run was 'cut short' after two years, that he went out on a high (performance wise) and that he didn't have an opportunity to give us everything he could, the same can't be said for Craig. He has been given a chance to play all sides of Bond, just like Brosnan was given a chance.

    Craig is not Tom Cruise. Bond is not his cinematic invention. He started as a rookie with the reboot and has taken the franchise back to the 'old school' style with SP. Now, in the interests of giving the franchise a fresh start after 12 years (since he was originally cast), I personally feel it's time to move on, especially since the whole era has been 'connected' in a tiresome way.

    I think SP and Craig's performance in it are one of the few things you and I seem to disagree on @bondjames but as for the rest, well said. Dalton's era was cut tragically short. With Brosnan you can make a case for him never really getting the film he wanted, since his suggestions about the direction he wanted to take it in were ignored more often than not, and I'd say he deserved a fifth film to rectify that.

    But Craig has pretty much been able to do everything he wants with the role. He's done Fleming esque vulnerability, Dalton esque intensity and in the last two has tapped into the more classic Connery/Moore/Brosnan side of things. He's done funny Bond, suave Bond, angry brutal Bond, mopey alcoholic post tragedy Bond, rookie Bond, old man Bond, etc. Are there really any different facets left that he can tap into while still making it feel like he's playing the same person? He's had an unusual amount of creative control, he was a producer on SP and he got to handpick the director of his last two. He hasn't really had any restrictions, so at this point I think it's fair to say that he's been able to do all he can with the part. So not only does the story of his era feel done but so does his Bond. It's been 12 years. If he comes back he'll have been Bond longer than Moore was. It's time for a change.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for, all those saying that it's time for Craig to go.

    He's one of the best Bond actors we've had, clearly. Craig elevates mediocre material and brings gravitas and credibility that had long been missing from the films.Unless they're about to replace him with Fassbender, I'm not sure there's an obvious replacement out there.

    And with a lightweight actor in the role, it would be very, very easy for things to slip back to the sorry state they were in 2 decades ago.

    If you think SP was bad, then remember it can be a lot, lot worse.
    I can appreciate your fears, especially given the trauma you must have experienced after Dalton moved on in favour of Brosnan.

    There's nothing to be worried about. Unlike Dalton, who dug deep and went gritty for his second film with an inimitable performance like no Bond actor before him, Craig decided to adopt a more conventional style for his last outing, to decidely mixed results (to put it mildly). Even some of his biggest fans have acknowledged that. I don't judge an actor (or a person or a country) by their history or what they did 10 years ago, but rather by what they've done lately. On that score, I won't miss him.

    There's always a risk as you say, but I'm more than willing to take the chance. Moreover, change is good after more than a decade. Sadly, we'll probably have to wait another four years for the announcement based on prior behaviour (one year prior to B26's release).

    Fair enough if you feel that way, but I think you're hatred of SP is blinding you to the fact it's still a perfectly serviceable Bond performance from Craig.

    Bit unfair comparing Dalton's second outing with SP. Surely LTK should be compared with QoS? Plus we never got late Dalton Bond. Who knows where it would have ended up. Probably he would have gone out on a less hard hitting entry.
    There's no 'hatred' here. That's not an emotion I'm partial to. Severe disappointment is more like it.

    Serviceable you say? That's a bit generous don't you think? Anyway, I thought we were supposed to be getting a bit more than that, weren't we? That was the whole promise of the Craig era. If I'm supposed to settle for 'serviceable' then let's get a younger actor in the role who can fully live up to cinematic Bond's glamour, style and uniqueness.

    Of course LTK can be compared to QoS. That's not the point I was making. The point is I am not wed to this actor, his interpretation or his direct continuity story and troubles. While a valid argument could be made that Dalton's run was 'cut short' after two years, that he went out on a high (performance wise) and that he didn't have an opportunity to give us everything he could, the same can't be said for Craig. He has been given a chance to play all sides of Bond, just like Brosnan was given a chance.

    Craig is not Tom Cruise. Bond is not his cinematic invention. He started as a rookie with the reboot and has taken the franchise back to the 'old school' style with SP. Now, in the interests of giving the franchise a fresh start after 12 years (since he was originally cast), I personally feel it's time to move on, especially since the whole era has been 'connected' in a tiresome way.

    I think SP and Craig's performance in it are one of the few things you and I seem to disagree on @bondjames but as for the rest, well said. Dalton's era was cut tragically short. With Brosnan you can make a case for him never really getting the film he wanted, since his suggestions about the direction he wanted to take it in were ignored more often than not, and I'd say he deserved a fifth film to rectify that.

    But Craig has pretty much been able to do everything he wants with the role. He's done Fleming esque vulnerability, Dalton esque intensity and in the last two has tapped into the more classic Connery/Moore/Brosnan side of things. He's done funny Bond, suave Bond, angry brutal Bond, mopey alcoholic post tragedy Bond, rookie Bond, old man Bond, etc. Are there really any different facets left that he can tap into while still making it feel like he's playing the same person? He's had an unusual amount of creative control, he was a producer on SP and he got to handpick the director of his last two. He hasn't really had any restrictions, so at this point I think it's fair to say that he's been able to do all he can with the part. So not only does the story of his era feel done but so does his Bond. It's been 12 years. If he comes back he'll have been Bond longer than Moore was. It's time for a change.
    Agreed @thelivingroyale, and I can appreciate your enjoyment of Craig's work in SP. He definitely did his most conventional interpretation of the character there and the film itself recalled past efforts. I get that, even if I didn't enjoy it.

    More than anything and as you said, it's the time that has elapsed which makes me want a change. That and the interconnected nature of his era (connections which I find strained and forced). I just feel that his era is now weighed down, and to suddenly break with that for B25 in order to give him a 'standalone' sendoff (on a high, as some of his fans want) seems a bit excessive.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Dangerous radicalism!

    This is the kind of irresponsible attitude that gave us Brexit and Trump.

    I am a small c conservative of the 'if it ain't broke' school of thought.

    While I can see that some might argue Bond is broke (taking it a bit far IMO), I am not convinced anyone at EON has the tools or energy to fix it.

    So best to stick with the best Bond in two decades IMO.

    Tinkering by Babs and Purvis and Wade will only lead to more serious engine failure.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,619
    He's far to artsy and serious for a franchise that ought to be a pleasure trip.

    Movies of The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception were exactly as serious as a great Bond movie should be.

    I really really wonder where so many of you have gotten the idea that Bond movies should be about drama? After all, that's not the way he became a legend.
    I really really wonder where so many of you have gotten the idea that Nolan's big budget movies are dreary dramas. Inception or Batman Begins might be serious, but at the same time they are more fun than most Bond movies.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Perhaps a Nolan appreciate thread required. I can't see him direct a Craig Bond film. If he is to step in it will be a total reboot with his own leading man. I note nothing official on Craig's return but for me it's given he will. What happens after 25 who knows but that another 5 year down the line.
Sign In or Register to comment.